Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The article didn't distinguish much between testing stage regulations and production stage regulations. Did Amazon have problems finding a testing area? Why not just use the big backyard of some executive or some other private property to test?

But I imagine that regulations will be sticky in Canada also if and when they want to go to production deliveries. I've seen no evidence Canada has friendlier skies for real deliveries.

I suspect it's merely a PR stunt to embarrass the USA into creating friendlier sky laws.

Ruby-on-Rails? That's yesterday's fashion. NodeJS is the latest buzz. That is until enough devs make spaghetti code out of it like they do everything else and ruin it's cred.

It's why co's still use COBOL: nobody is interested in f8cking with it such that it doesn't surprise you: it sucks consistently and sucks reliably. Predictable suckage is preferred over unpredictable suckage. Hear that Comcast?!

No, your writing is just bad and meandering and assumptive. How about you pick a specific "guilty" scenario, a "sample" email, and we'll each run that scenario through our models (assumptions/perspectives) about how Fed emails and/or the email-related laws work or don't work step by step.

Rather than make that good faith effort, she deliberately acted to keep her records from going anywhere near State's servers

You claim that, but have no solid proof.

slower method with more work involved, it reflects a deliberate choice to produce the required documents in a way that maximizes the delay...

That's merely your personal speculation based on pre-conceived notions. Maybe there is a perfectly logical reason it was done that way. For example, maybe her personal system didn't have a converter to convert messages into a digital format the judge's system can import. Without more info, I see no reason to continue to speculate on that. It's off topic anyhow as it's not about your crime claim.

Clinton herself signed a memo to her staff reminding them that they had to use state.gov mailboxes for their official correspondence.

Hypocrisy is not a crime. You claimed a crime. Internal memos are not laws. (Peronsally, I suspect she rubber-stamped it without thinking about it much.)

Do you really think that when someone at, say, the FAA gets a FOIA request, that it's the intention or the practice for their own records people to then contact hundreds of other agencies and departments to scour THEIR records for FAA-related correspondence?

Sorry, you lost me here. What does "THEIR" refer to, FAA or FOIA.

You're essentially saying that absolutely no career archivists and investigators can be trusted to know if they've looked through stored email records, but we can trust Hillary Clinton to be 100% upright when she...

False dichotomy. I'm only applying "innocent until proven guilty". Criminal behavior of archive diggers is not the topic here. And you forgot that the investigators suggested there were problems with State Dept. archives. It could be a hardware problem; I never implied it was sabotage; I'm only saying there could be gaps in what's is available here and now based on such statements. Don't read more into what I said and invent intent and conspiracies. If they go searching for something and don't find it, it could be (at least) one of two things: 1) It never existed, or 2) the server or archive machine has a defect, bug-based, or servicer error-based gap, as earlier suspected. (They didn't say the cause of the problem.)

But the State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officialsâ(TM) emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.

This patchwork system, reflecting a broader confusion and slowness throughout the government as federal agencies struggle to catch up with the digital age, raises the possibility that some emails from Mrs. Clinton to other State Department officials may have been lost altogether.

(End Quote)

Thus, mere using of the State Department emails BY ITSELF would not guarentee longer-term archiving. Had she merely used the State Dept. email system (and/or Fwd/CC'd S.D. staff), such emails would have STILL been at risk of being lost. As far as what is supposed to be placed on the mentioned "special record-keeping server", I don't have any details on that. If you do, please present them.

(Side note: Ideally an assistant would assist H in doing that rather than her spending her own time deciding what needs "official" archiving. It's not something a Sr. official should spend their time diddling with. Further, it may be cheaper and more reliable to archive everything rather than pay sifters.)

So printing is a crime? Lovely. Maybe the judge wanted printed copies. Why invent PrintGate out of nowhere? Why are focusing on that? You are meandering again. Bad habit.

Her own description of her actions shows that she didn't provide State with any magical CCs of her communications with external third parties or other agencies...

Link? I don't trust your reading comprehension after you fouled up the Al Jez. quote.

The only way your lame, blithe dismissal of that can be anything other than shameless spin is if you are asserting that she never exchanged a single piece of official email with anyone in another agency, branch of government, or third party/nation.

And there are usually more training material, tutorials, and road-tested reference info for older stuff. Look one version back and you can get $7 books even. Established technologies don't change that much between versions such that say a book for version 7 won't be much different from the latest, version 8. You can usually find a "what's new in version 8" article on the web for the differences so that you don't have buy the latest book.

That can't be true since email didn't really exist in the 1950's. Obviously one was not required to keep every single correspondence to everybody in the paper era forever. Further, paper could be damaged from rain, fire, insects, etc.